AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
-' ---------------------------------- '	SRA	'----------------'

''	''

''	''

x

-----------------------------------	----------------
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
-'        -----------------------------------
''	x
,...':
''
'	x
'
r---:
'
''	x

'

''	x
''	x
'·------------------------------------
ISSUES	A92.35	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A94.05	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

3 May 2006	FD-2005-00378
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DlSCHAROEREVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

.W-.:......'1iiJ111i: "1'-11.li:t:Olll)j'p_ - - - - - - - - _..,.. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ./..'_ - - - - - - - - - _ 1si!k1.IJ.Fif.Y-ll.Qf>;a!lJ'_.Siii,r:J!_ - - - - - - - - - - - -
"'
'

''' '

:---------------------------------::i.;;:: ----

N-D--O-R--S-E-M--E-N--T--------. ---------------------------------------DATE:    5/8/2006

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition  wi ll be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NllMBER

FD-2005-00378	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that the minor mishaps that took place were after his scheduled separation date of November 27, 2001.  However, due to the implementation of the Stop Loss Program, his separation date was extended indefinitely.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failures to go on November 6, 20, and 29-30, 2001, resulting in forty-five days extra duty.  Applicant had four Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, caused self-injury, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, sleeping on duty, failure to maintain standards of discipline and misuse of a government computer.  Applicant had one Letter of Counseling for failure to go while he was working on his car stereo during the duty day, despite previous warnings and during feedback sessions.  Applicant notes the minor mishaps happened after his scheduled Date of Separation (DOS).  The DRB made note of this and also considered that applicant had seven disciplinary infractions prior to his scheduled DOS.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant
departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on
December 8, 1997) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

---	---·---